Home » Opinion » The Blogosphere » Currently Reading:

Model Aims to Upset Blogosphere

January 7, 2009 Opinion, The Blogosphere View Comments

There is a lot of back-biting that goes on in the blogosphere. I for one know this first hand as I have a couple of other so-called bloggers who attack me on a regular basis. Kevin the Chimp, Meat for Brains, pay some attention to this story. You too Insane Dan aka Republican Vet – thought I forgot about your psychotic arse didn’t you.

A former Vogue model named Liskula Cohen is suing Google because of a few tasteless posts on a site called Skanks in NYC. She is suing to get the name of the anonymous blogger who authors the blog hosted on Blogger.com as well as the commenters. Cohen doesn’t know it but if her suit is successful, it will stifle free speech on the net.

I’m not going to go so far as to claim that this is a deliberate effort by Cohen to effect free speech, she is merely attempting to protect her reputation. A reputation that is seemingly tainted might I add.

As I’ve said, my beef isn’t with her, it is with what she is doing. However, one must convince a jury in a libel suit that a reasonable man (or woman) must be convinced that what has been printed about them is true when it is not. Problem for Cohen is I’m not convinced that it isn’t true.

Someone took those photos of her acting in the manner that she did. Someone took them and leaked them. What is being said about her on the blog may or may not be true with the exception of her age. The site claims that she’s 40 when her actual age is 36. If that is the only inaccuracy that she has to prove that the site is libelous, she has an uphill battle.

Perhaps Ms. Cohen should research the libel suit against Larry Flint brought on by Jerry Falwell before she goes forward. Flint’s magazine ‘Hustler’ had a rather tasteless pseudo-advertisement for Compari which portrayed Falwell as having a sexual relationship with his own mother. Falwell lost his suit against Flint and his magazine because it could not be assumed that a reasonable man could be made believe that Mr. Falwell would have a sexual relationship with his mother by the ad. In a sense, the ad was so outrageously out of character for Mr. Falwell, that no reasonable person could believe it.

The court found that the free speech guaranties of the First Amendment prohibit public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, from recovering from the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by publishing a caricature, as was in the ad parodies in Hustler magazine. In order to recover from the tort, it must be shown that the ad which contained the false statement was made with actual malice, or with knowledge that the statement was false, or with reckless disregard as to whether it was true.

There was no assertion of fact in the ad parodies and no reasonable person could believe them to be true. Additionally, malice was not proven by the respondent. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, citing the First Amendment free speech guaranties and the rule of law that public figures cannot recover from the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress unless malice is proven.

Let’s keep in mind that Ms. Cohen has appeared in Vogue and other publications therefore she IS a public figure. So is anyone who publishes a blog, either in their own name or through the use of a pseudonym, reporters, authors, televisions personalities, politicians, musicians, actors, etc… It’s all fair game folks.

Now, if Ms. Cohen has a propensity for doing any of the things claimed in the blog that she is suing over, it cannot be assumed that any person could be reasonably be convinced that it isn’t true. There are photos of her acting in a tasteless manner. The author of the blog points this out. The author of the blog also has some sort of personal vendetta against Ms. Cohen the source of which doesn’t matter.

What does matter is the precedent that forcing Google to reveal who the author is would set. As of now, the web is a free forum for anyone to speak about anything they want to speak about. Should Ms. Cohen prevail in her quest, people may become afraid to speak their minds out of fear of legal ramifications from some offended twit.

Ms. Cohen acts a little loose and she has been called out by this blogger for acting in this manner. Perhaps Ms. Cohen should analyze her actions before attacking the messenger. That said however, should Ms. Cohen prevail in her quest, perhaps Kevin the Chimp and Meat for Brains should consider hiring themselves legal counsel.

As for anyone considering actions against me – make sure you read the footer before going through the expense of putting an attorney on retainer. All the material printed on this blog is for the express purpose of political commentary. Anything said, written, or otherwise placed in the public domain is fair game. And if you were to take the time to look at every post, you will notice that it is filed under ‘opinion’ and that is something that everyone is entitled to and free to express. Or so says the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Ms. Cohen, I’m sorry that someone thinks so little of you as to print such material about you on a blog. However, if the material is in the public sphere it is next to impossible to remove it. You cannot put the toothpaste back into the proverbial tube. Your trying will only harm others unconnected with this incident and will do nothing to improve your reputation. As-a-matter-of-fact, by bringing attention to it, you will be placing yourself under increased public scrutiny – so why go through with it?

Sources:

The New York Post
New York Daily News

Note – I refuse to link Skanks in NYC. If you are interested in seeing the tasteless posts about Ms. Cohen, do what I did – Goggle it.

Bookmark and Share